Fix simulator test failures on main

[harikrishna-patnala]

Description

This PR fixes the below failures seen on main branch health check PR #12198

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 19.50%. Comparing base (d2a3bd1) to head (4559ac7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main   #13608   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     19.50%   19.50%           
+ Complexity    19441    19439    -2     
=========================================
  Files          6303     6303           
  Lines        569288   569286    -2     
  Branches      69792    69791    -1     
=========================================
+ Hits         111029   111030    +1     
+ Misses       446108   446103    -5     
- Partials      12151    12153    +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.41% <ø> (ø)
unittests	20.77% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[weizhouapache]

thanks a lot @harikrishna-patnala

@blueorangutan package

[weizhouapache]

code lgtm

makes perfect sense

[blueorangutan]

@weizhouapache a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with no SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

[blueorangutan]

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ el10 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 18561

[weizhouapache]

@blueorangutan test

[blueorangutan]

@weizhouapache a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates CloudStack’s VPC-offering validation and integration test expectations to align with current service support rules, addressing simulator test failures observed on the main branch.

Changes:

• Update the VPC offering integration test to use SecurityGroup as an invalid VPC service (instead of Firewall).
• Adjust network offering creation logic so Firewall no longer implicitly classifies an offering as “for VPC”.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
test/integration/component/test_vpc_offerings.py	Fixes the invalid-service VPC offering test case to assert failure on SecurityGroup service.
server/src/main/java/com/cloud/configuration/ConfigurationManagerImpl.java	Removes Firewall from the implicit “for VPC” inference logic during network offering creation.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[weizhouapache]

CI results look fine.

merging this, I will run smoke tests with other PRs (see #12198)

thanks @harikrishna-patnala for the fix, and @sureshanaparti for the review